Shades of Crimson

As Nov. 22 approaches, preparations for The Game have are beginning to take off. Yalies are arranging their brief—and cramped—housing accommodations; old alumni are shaking the mothballs off of their bearskin coats; and, of course, the University has started to plan for the tailgate. This year, the new policy that has been brokered with City of Boston allows the tailgate to run for only two hours before the Game begins at noon. House Committees will also be able to serve alcohol to students over 21 years of age, as they have in years past. Tradeoffs among fun, safety, and legality are difficult to balance in this circumstance, and this year’s policy seems a good compromise that allows for some fun, protects student health, and abides by the law.

Having HoCos serve students alcohol is a major benefit for this year’s game. As the facilitators of house life in the college, HoCos should be the organizations providing students with the accoutrements of game day. Furthermore, giving HoCos a stake in helping to run this enormous undertaking provides students with an opportunity to prove that they can handle themselves in a potentially dangerous situation. In short, it’s good to have students helping other students under the umbrella of the House system.

Although HoCos may be able to help students make good decisions, there are some flaws in this new policy that may endanger students at worst, and ruin the game at best. That the tailgate must start at 10 a.m. incentivizes underage students to binge drink at 9 a.m. Not only do restrictions that push drinking underground end up hurting students in this manner, but also the timing detracts from the game itself. Beyond the obvious concerns for student health, the early drinkers are more prone to decide not to go to the game at all, considering they will only be able to tailgate for two hours before they have to stand in the cold at Soldiers Field sobering up. In this unfortunate situation, too many students would find it far more rational to remain drunk, warm, and out of the police’s reach by staying near the Square.

Those who do decide to bare the rules and regulations of this year’s will face an entirely different challenge in Allston: having fun under the constraints of martial law. The prospect of police officers prowling the tailgate grounds will leave little room for gregariousness and glee. The mood that these officers will set—intentionally or not—will inevitably be one of grim law and order—a concept does not jive with the camaraderie of football in any way, even on the gridiron itself.

Students understand the motives for these new restrictions. The Harvard-Yale tailgate in 2004 is best remembered as a “10,000-person bacchanalia with some students ‘doing anything and everything’ to guzzle hard liquor,” as a Crimson staff writer reported at the time. That said, administrators should be wary of over-regulating against a potential repeat of these transgressions. At Yale’s all-day tailgate last year, where enforcement against underage drinking was comparatively lax, police officers issued only six infractions, none of which were related to alcohol. Converesely, in 2006, when Harvard barred all alcohol and other liquids from being brought to Allston and segregated students who were of legal drinking age, ten students were ejected for underage drinking, smuggling alcohol, and possessing false identification, according to Ryan Travia, Harvard’s director of alcohol and substance abuse services. The stark contrast between the two tailgates provides evidence that safe drinking is not all about law enforcement.

It is unfortunate that the University did not pushback harder against the Boston Police Department for students. According to a Yale Daily News article, Jean Lorisio, counsel to the Boston Board of Licensing, said that Harvard did not have to add more restrictions this year to receive the tailgating permit. Instead of voluntarily promoting such a strict atmosphere, Harvard should have developed its own controlled—but not militaristic—policy.

As both a representative and custodian of its students, the University has a responsibility to ensure a safe and fun Game day. While the recently established policy leaves much room for criticism, it remains a significant improvement from Harvard’s tailgate two years ago, and seems make the best of difficult tradeoffs. Although more could have been done for students, the policy should not be condemned outright.